Pages

Monday, September 21, 2009

Just got a notice in the mail on the SLO BOS's public hearing, 9 a.m., September 29, in the BOS chambers. It's the appeals hearing on the proposed Los Osos Sewer Project, and there's an interesting collection of people who have filed appeals, including Don Bearden. (You can read their appeals at the http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/ site.)

Don Bearden?? Like a metronome, Don's shown up at numberless meetings to urge The Powers That Be to brook no delay, to build whatever will be done quickest, to ignore those who would toss roadbocks -- like appeals -- in the way of whatever project has been proposed, that he didn't care what kind of system is picked (though he prefered gravity) he just wanted this project to move ahead a quickly as possible.

Yet here's Don's appeal, urging the BOS to return to Tri-W as a feasible site, which if the BOS does, will open a hideous can of worms (remember that old unsupported SOC? Remember the Bait & Switchy Coastal Commission? Remember Ron Crawford of http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ endlessly connecting dots and telling us of his official filed complaint (on that SOC and SRF $$ being used for "amenities" just waiting to be turn-keyed, maybe resulting in investigations that nobody wants to get into, maybe public hearings, awww Gawwwdddd ) all of which will result in Delay! Delay! Delay!

Which then begs the question: Can we now start calling Don an ANTI-SEWER OBSTRUCTIONIST?

105 comments:

"Ron Crawford of sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ endlessly connecting dots and telling us of his official filed complaint... maybe resulting in investigations that nobody wants to get into..."

What's hilarious about that, are the reasons all of those official agencies give me for not wanting to investigate the obvious fraud involved with the Tri-W embarrassment.

They never tell me that I'm wrong (because, I never am).

However, what they DO tell me is that they, "don't have enough time" to investigate, or it's "out of our jurisdiction," or, "the statute of limitations has expired," or (and this one is a SLO County specialty), they just never reply to my questions at all... like when I showed county counsel, Warren Jensen, how I filed my super-tight challenge to the SRF loan in 2005 (before it was released), and if the County were to argue my challenge today, it would save Los Ososans millions of dollars because it would make the Governor's "signing statement" to AB 2701 immediately disappear, thus paving the way for another low-interest SRF loan.

Yep. That can happen right now, and it would save Los Ososans MILLIONS of dollars. Of course, to do that, it would also show that Los Ososans (and Californians) were victims of the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD's "bait and switchy" scam involving the Tri-W fraud, so the County just pretends like I never contacted them about my SRF challenge.

Extraordinary.

They'd rather protect their own (like SLO County Parks Commissioner, and former LOCSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, and Public Works Director, and former LOCSD interim GM [hired by Nash-Karner] Paavo Ogren) than save Los Ososans a lot of money. Again, extraordinary.

By the way, am I the ONLY one that finds it a little suspect that the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD wasted six years and some $25 million on the Tri-W embarrassment, and now -- now that another agency has the project -- the Tri-W embarrassment doesn't even come close to getting a sniff at development, and county officials now call it "infeasible?"

It's almost like all of those official agencies that were Jedi mind-tricked into approving the Tri-W embarrassment, now want to pretend that it never happened... like it was all just a "Dream."

"That's the past. Let's move forward."

The problem with that take? That "past" cost Californians MILLIONS through YEARS of completely unnecessary administrative costs associated with the Tri-W embarrassment/fraud.

Come to think of it... it still is. How much are those ridiculous RWQCB enforcement actions costing Californians? All of that staff time, and lawyers, and paper, and processing, and administration, and meetings? That can't be cheap.

Actually Ron, et al... we ARE very PROUD of the fantastic job the pre-recall Directors and volunteers did in actually coming up with a PLAN...!!!! ...and that PLAN went through every government wringer and still came out with EVERY PERMIT REQUIRED....!!!!!

The Tri-W is still viable, we own the land... we have full design that could be up-dated with few substantial changes and could have the permits reviewed and approved long before the County gets a full Plan ready...

Don Beardon is completly correct, the Tri-W site has jumped through all the hoops to become permitted...

Yes, the County will get sued when Tri-W is selected again... but most of the tired old arguments have already been vetted... let's get the suits going now so a court can rule on them... The other alternative is to wait until some "out of town" site is finally selected... that site will also get the County sued... so we either get back to what we know or wait for further delays until that set of lawsuits gets filed and further delays while the courts settle this mess...

...so Ron, that's the real way it is in LO... it's too bad you don't live here... guess you really are STILL WRONG...

An appeal is not a lawsuit, the County has been perhaps remiss in not comparing the COSTS of Tri-W (for their obvious political and water purveyor reasons) vs. the out-of-town sure-fire lawsuit generators - which have NOT YET been litigated, but you can bet they will be - tying up yet another project.

Ron's ramblings have been soundly debunked for anyone not wearing blinders!

Say ron, weren't you conspiring against Gordon lately? How'd that work out for you?

The problem I have with Mr. Bearden's appeal is that he focuses on the Giacomazzi Site's flaws -- which I happen to agree with -- but when it comes to how these impacts would be remedied by having the plant located at Tri-W, he doesn't deliver. He just says that Tri-W is a feasible alternative without additional resources to solidify his reasoning.

I found one thing interesting. He says on #6 (pg. 4 of the appeal PDF), "Plant spills at Giacomazzi have only a short wayto go down steep topography to get to Warden Lake and flow to Morro Bay. The Mid-Town site has sandy soils and a greater distance to waterways making spill prevention more easily solved."

Dr. Tom Ruehr has stated that the soil on Tri-W, in layman's terms, doesn't exactly absorb much liquid. Once it reaches peak absorption, that liquid is going to travel downward (since Tri-W is on a slope) and it's going to make its way down to the Cuesta-by-the-Sea bay area. The location would impact more residents -- in a more concentrated area -- more than the impacts at Giacomazzi.

ron, remember last July or so when you filed that complaint against the past CSD directors with the FPPC? You wrote about some of it in your last posting (- in August! Not got much to say lately?). You claimed that Lisa and Julie were people of knowledge to back up your complaint? Why don't you tell us all here how that went for you - I'm sure we'd like to hear how that went down in flames - that there was NOTHING there - that NO LAWS WERE BROKEN. Please - do tell us about it!

If I received a nickel for every time someone said, "It was fully permitted and already under construction," I'd be rich.

Yes, you stated your reasons for going back to Tri-W as a conclusion but you didn't state WHY it got to where it was in 2005.

Mr. Bearden should have added additional material that objectively outlined the location specs in comparison to Giacomazzi. Then, his appeal would have been a lot more comprehensive. This is constructive feedback.

I wish it was a little more than four pages. Two-sentence rebuttals with bold-type emphasis just doesn't cut it.

How about the fact that Bruce Buel put up his own house as collateral for some insurance payment, or bond or something? I don't know remember exactly what it was. That kind of sends a red flag up to me. What other backroom deals or laws or ethics were broken to "fully fund, fully permit, fully begin construction on a site that was argued against through its entire life. A site three times tyhe cost of the Counts plan, at a site in the middle of freaking town overlooking the beautiful bay. And i'm supposed to say now, "well it will be the quickest". Not gonna happen. Remember Mike your beloved group that you keep praising took away from us what we will never get back. It would have been a done deal by now and a thing of the past, but here you all are now, continueing to try and bring about something that is only going to cause delay and cost. Go away.Sincerely, M

Sorry M... the responsible individuals who screwed the community by throwing the bank account to their sole sourced lawyers was led by Lisa Schecker... Go out and thank them for the delays and doubling or tripling of costs...don't forget that there is still a bankruptcy that is not going away...!!!!!

..and young Aaron, are you so stupid that you can't understand what it took to obtain ALL the LEGALLY REQUIRED PERMITS... You can rag on all you want, but you don't have the experience you would like the community to think you have... you really don't understand... maybe you ought to go finish your AA in something... and them maybe go get a BA... maybe then you'll have a better understanding of what it took to obtain those permits... you haven't finished anything since high school and I wonder if that was just a continuation school, you sure don't have a solid education to back your condesending attitude...

I'm glad you're staying Anonymous, old Mike. If you identified yourself, I would challenge you to a public debate and debate you under the table. I spend more time researching than insulting people less than half my age -- so stop trying to talk me down. You're wasting your time.

You wrote the other day, "As crazy as the extremists in Los Osos appear, I would rather not get into a confrontation... I can more than take care of myself." If you don't want a confrontation, then stop with the inflammatory rhetoric and let's talk about the issues. If you can't, then don't talk being afraid of having your ass kicked.

As I stated before to Lynette, "Yes, you stated your reasons for going back to Tri-W as a conclusion but you didn't state WHY it got to where it was in 2005."

Perhaps I should clarify.

In other words, my concern is not the fact that the project was permitted. I got that part. It's about how it got through the permitting process. What made Tri-W desirable then compared to what would make the location desirable now? List the specs. Do the homework, consider the counterargument, think ahead.

Mr. Bearden did not sell Tri-W in his appeal. He focused more on the flaws with Giacomazzi.

Ann, you should be hesitant to suggest others read sewerwatch without a warning. Ron has this nasty habit of insulting (but not actually responding to the heart of the matter) those who would question his Godhood. It is embarrassing, really. Perhaps, when you suggest people read his "connecting the dots" you should also warn them that if they dare question any of his dot-connecting ... like connecting 7 to 38 and skipping 8, 9 and all the other numbers through 37 ... that they will be unreasonable insulted by someone who would appear to need to take a logic class.

Aaron, that TriW passed muster with all the various permitting agencies is HUGE. Perhaps you don't realize this, but it is true.

All, it would appear reasonable to believe that the new site (behind the cemetary) will sail thru various permitting agencies, but I suspect that the amount of legal wrangling might be about the same for Giacomazzi as for TriW. It is not obvious that any site is free from strong opposition, so to suggest that TriW is necessarily worse without a cost/benefit analysis is, as some would point out, silliness.

Mr. Bearden didn't need to 'sell' any of us on the mid-town site. It's been obvious from Day 1. But, of course we've had idiots like Schicker and Tacker trying to make a name for themselves, muddying up the whole process. "we'll have a sewer here over my dead body!" was Julie's rant some years ago. Now that she is no longer a homeowner, she is pushing Jeffy's agenda of 'development' Here's an idea: Why don't you get a tubal ligation, and quit procreating? Enough already!

Of course, Mr. Bearden doesn't have to pitch it to you. That's preaching to the choir You know where he's coming from, but I'm not sure if the County knows or if the County staff will find his arguments to be as clear as you think he is.

What's obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else. For instance, it was obvious to me when Bruce Gibson proclaimed that Tri-W wasn't going to happen during office hours. It was obvious to me that the County staff found significant social infeasibility with that location. It was obvious to me that -- even with a poorly written Measure B -- the majority of voters in 2005 voted against Tri-W, a fully permitted project.

There are more hoops to jump through now. The first step is to win the County over and the community, second is to address the concerns that originated from 2005, third is to go through the permit process all over again. At this moment in time, pushing to go back to Mid-Town would show short-sightedness of the problems that will surface.

Now there's talk of lawsuits involving Giacomazzi. Who would be filing those lawsuits?

Aaron, they voted for Measure B with an overwhelming (ha-ha) 20 extra votes over those who didn't vote for it - to support the supposed $100/mo. plant out of town - we can all see how truthful THAT was.

What changed was the dollar$ between the Tri-W with ponds and the Tri-W with an MBR plant. Everyone was fine until that price tag. But as nowhere is cheap, too bad it is out of the running. NOW it seems cheap compared to everything else. Plus, you know - water over the basin, no possibility for expansion, etc..

Read the appeals. The Clark Valley Road folks and the Cemetery corporation. The plant is of no benefit to them - why should they want our waste if we didn't want to deal with it? Is that "social justice" that they should have to take it? Seems more like arrogance to me. I'm sure that the County was aware of this in their selection of Turri Road.

As much as I would like to see Tri-W back, the County is not going to go there. Too political. The infeasibility for the County is partly that, but more importantly, they are not a water purveyor, so they can't.

aaron sez:"It's about how it got through the permitting process. What made Tri-W desirable then compared to what would make the location desirable now? List the specs. Do the homework, consider the counterargument, think ahead."

And while you're at it, would somebody please find documentation of the overwhelming public demand that a sewer had to be located in the middle of town so it could have public amenities next to it. Ron looked high and low for some evidence to back up that SOC statement but could find none. Maybe if Tri W goes back on the plate somebody could find those documents?

Toonces sez:" Ann, I can't believe you wrote this about Don!!!

An appeal is not a lawsuit,"

Please go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Mike sez:"and young Aaron, are you so stupid that you can't understand what it took to obtain ALL the LEGALLY REQUIRED PERMITS..."

Mike, has anyone reminded you that gratuitous ad hominen attacks always mean you've lost the argument right out of the box, not to mention whatever shred of credibility you may wish to claim? I know that's your usual M.O. but I suspect it's one of the reasons a lot of folks don't give much credibility to anything you post here. I know I sure don't.

Shark sez:"All, it would appear reasonable to believe that the new site (behind the cemetary) will sail thru various permitting agencies, but I suspect that the amount of legal wrangling might be about the same for Giacomazzi as for TriW."

Planning Commissioner Christie said, we're gonna get sued no matter what we do, so let's at least do the right thing.

aaron sez:"Shark, I know it's HUGE, but there's something or somethings that these agencies liked about Tri-W that made the project go as far as it did."

Like maybe the (so far) unsupported (false?) claim that there was NO OTHER feasible site that had the centrally located amenities the community supposedly demanded be located next to their sewer plant in the middle of town?

hahahaha... love it Ann... You don't like my attacks... That is really the pot calling the kettle black... Why do you think I'm in here reminding you just how nasty you were/are toward the pre-recall Directors and the Tri-W Plan...

...and Ann, how do you know that there were no other sites looked at.....????? You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that... Go do some homework before you try bending the truth to support your comment... You Ann, are part of the reason for the dissention in this community, you've told yourself too many partial truths and you continue to tell them to the community...

Have a nice day and do try to find out from someone beside Gail or Lisa....

Heck, the ONLY reason I wrote Three Blocks back in 2004, and started SewerWatch, is because I was the only one (reporter OR citizen) that saw that the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD had "bait and swithy"-ied (read: lied) their way to getting the Tri embarrassment approved, and that there was absolutely no documentable reason whatsoever on why a sewer plant was being built in the middle of a town that I've grown to love due to my years of reporting in that town, on a daily basis.

And, just so I could keep a clean conscience for the rest of my life, I, beginning in 2004, did what a reporter with knowledge is obligated to do -- report on all of that.

Which is exactly what I did.

And now that the Tri-W "project" has been exposed to be the exact colossal embarrassment that I've reported it to be for all of those years (by the way, thank you County officials for spending three years and seven million dollars proving my reporting 100-percent accurate... 'ppreciate it), and it has exactly zero chance of ever being built... hey, mission accomplished!

I'm done. A-boo-yeah! There's nothing left to say.

I've written many-a-time -- once that disaster bites the dust, there's a very good chance Los Osos would never hear from me again (of course, that was before I realized what an amazing book I had on my hands).

And, yes: The Tri-W disaster/embarrassment/fraud has all-but-"officially" bit the dust... because there's no freaking way that smart county officials (you know, the ones that Maria Kelly likes so much) are going to put THEIR professional reputations on the line for Pandora's, and Gordon's and Richard's, etc. colossal embarrassment. Of course.

So, yeah. I'm pretty much done here. (I just patted myself on the back. Really. I just did that.)

Now-a-days... it looks like it's just down to popping out my book... which absolutely kicks ass, I will add. It's loaded with all kinds of excellent, universal themes, which means it'll have appeal waaaaaaay beyond Los Osos.

Say Ron... Please continue to be environmentally kind and publish your book on biodegradable rolls with non-toxic ink suitable for flushing to the Tri-W Waste Water Treatment Center and Community Park... Thanks in advance although there won't be many book rolls actually printed...

I got what Ann was saying the first time around. Here is someone (Mr. Bearden) who has condemned lawsuits and appeals as being "obstructionist" tactics when he ended up filing an appeal of his own. While I have no problem with him actually filing one, it's still a double-standard.

When I read Wolcott's book, she would list the lawsuits in chronological order that tied in with the history of the LOWWP. She would count them and would basically conclude that there were so many lawsuits, it delayed the project from being built and it created the costs. Lynette and a few of her colleagues believe that to be true.

Taxpayers Watch filed lawsuits of their own, which were not covered in the book. While they have a case, the following philosophical problems appear: (1) TW supporters have openly discouraged lawsuits of any kind even to a point when Sharon Fredericks once said, "Any lawsuits will delay the sewer." Any, you say? (2) The lawsuits filed essentially took the focus away from the LOWWP so that more time (on the district's dime) was spent on CSD members defending themselves in court than vetting a project. The TW lawsuits shifted the priority of legal resources to them.

In conclusion, anyone and everyone has the right to file an appeal so they shouldn't be condemned for it. If Lynette complains about Linde Owen and Piper Reilly's appeals, then Don Bearden should be held to that standard of scrutiny even if he appeals to your personal ideals.

Don and Ron are taking us down memory lane in resurrecting the Tri-W debate. However, the real excursion into wastewater planning history is found in Andrew Christy's appeal saying that 75% of the existing septic tanks can be used as STEP tanks. That's straight from the early Solutions Group era.

That and the personal lawsuits filed against Lisa Schicker, Julie Tacker, Steve Senet and Chuck Cesena for public waste.

I never implied there was "many" TW lawsuits, but I did say there were lawsuits... filed by people who have repeatedly said that lawsuits filed in relation to the LOWWP are "obstructionist delay tactics." Those were Richard LeGros' words.

I would imagine if you were a Taxpayers Watch supporter who has donated money, you would know how many lawsuits the organization has filed.

I do know... There are only 2... Measure B and the Public Waste case...

No "personal" lawsuits...

How many of the 11 obstructionist lawsuits filed by Al, Julie, Lisa were ever won...??? Those were all directly aimed at delaying and/or obstructing the Legally Permitted Tri-W Project... How many did the CSD5 pay their personal lawyers out of CSD funds...???

How many PZLDF lawsuits have ever been won...??? How many have been paid for by the PZLDF...???

Jeez Mike, are you one of the recalled directors or what? The way you keep bringing up how nastily we all teated them is kind of creepy. They were big boys. They could take it. Quite possibly the reason they were being subjected to this abuse was tied to their abusing of this community. I still have vivid pictures in my mind of the look Rose Bowker would get when someone would question what they were doing. They had already pre- determined at that point that Tri-W was going in no matter what. Remember the night they accepted the bids? Screw all of you, were taking them. We are going to build a grossly expensive sewer plant at the worst possible location and screw all of you. Threat of fines you say? Well, a 6-11 million dollar possible fine pales in comparison to what they wrought by trying to force Tri-W down our throats.Sincerely, M

When I met with LeGros, he said, "There are also lawsuits, personal ones, that are directed at the members of the board for public waste."

He mentioned this to me because I looked at CV050862 and made the educated guess that TW was suing the district, but I was quickly corrected by LeGros, on this blog, that there are lawsuits that are personally suing the board members in separate litigation.

There hasn't been a clear explanation regarding that case. Now, let's say that it's universally understood that there are only two lawsuits. They're still lawsuits, right? And lawsuits pertaining to the LOWWP are "obstructionist tactics," right? If the answer is yes to both of those questions, there's a massive hypocrisy issue and that hypocrisy undercuts even the most legitimate arguments you may have.

I shouldn't have to explain this Aaron, but the lawsuits TW filed were:

1. To block the obstruction from getting Tri-W built. That is different than causing the obstruction, as you are offering nothing even remotely comparable at the end of stopping it.

2. To hold directors accountable for the misuse of public funds.

Linde's and Pipers appeals would cause the County's project to stall out. Don's appeal brings to the forefront that we have a project ready to go with a few tweaks - its not some project that has never been litigated or permitted.

Now do you see the difference - getting something done (cheaper) vs. delay (raising the price, time delays to start building AND further damage to the environment).

The quest for that "perfect" project will ensure that there never will be a project. And what will the Water Board do about that?

M thinks, "We are going to build a grossly expensive sewer plant at the worst possible location and screw all of you."

M, please tell us what we have now that is cheaper? Please factor in possible fines, paying for the bankruptcy and aquifer loss to that $165 million we face. Please explain how stopping Tri-W has helped us.

M... if yoyu think the Tri-W site/system was expensive, just wait until to "out of town" get through... now there is a way the "out of town" could be less expensive...hook up more customers...!!!

How about adding Clark Canyon and Cabrillo...??? How about allowing a subdivision or 2 on the Tonini Property...???

More connected households means less cost per house...assuming the sewer was designed large enough in the beginning... You need to know that the first CSD was limited in the area that was required...but now, might as well build it HUGE and allow all the building that the economy will allow... and the "recession" will end and construction will be back... I guess in some regards I shouldn't care, I honestly think idiots like Al and Lisa will tie this up in court and I'll never see a sewer bill in my life time... although I don't think the Water Board will wait beyond 2010 before putting an end to the euphoria of slow go and obstructionism...

The problem is now you're adding exceptions to the rule. "Hey, anti-sewer obstructionists! Stop filing lawsuits or I will sue you for obstructing the process!" You don't see anything wrong with that statement? I see plenty.

I don't see your logic at all, especially when you wrote this:

"Linde's and Pipers appeals would cause the County's project to stall out. Don's appeal brings to the forefront that we have a project ready to go with a few tweaks - its not some project that has never been litigated or permitted."

The County team drafted a plan for Tonini, Planning Commission held several meetings for several months to change the location to Giacomazzi and now you're saying Don's appeal -- to bring the project back to Tri-W -- would actually be quicker and the project would be "ready to go with a few tweaks"? That's not taking into account all the things I mentioned in my post at 10:28 PM (September 21, 2009).

It's not as easy as a snap of the finger. I wish it's that simple, but it's not. Conditions have changed since 2005 including the fact that the very same community survey that resulted in the majority supporting gravity has also supported a site out of town or the edge of town. Call the dismissal of Tri-W "political," but even if we put aside the community survey's flaws and looked at the results, it was still a major shift (in opinions of those surveyed) toward the project being out of town.

No longer can you blame this sort of outcome on Measure B. It's not a 20-vote difference. It's a lot more than that.

Oh come on Aaron - you are now using the very survey you dissed as "biased" to support out-of-town? Can't have it both ways!

The process - to allow Measure B to be on the ballot could have gone either way. In hindsight, was that a good decision? How about Dalidio and Measure J? Let the people decide - they want a Target - and now just where is that case? What happened to Measure B in terms of fairness? Where were the votes from property owners who didn't - at that moment anyway - live in Los Osos. Their properties were strongly affected, yet they had no say. A transient renter had more say than they.

Initiatives and referendums work where people keep themselves educated on the issues, and where everyone - like property owners who do not live in Los Osos - are allowed to vote. Neither was true with Measure B. In fact, it was judged illegal in two courts. Voting to make it so does not necessarily make it legal.

Aaron, Tri-W had 15 or so lawsuits/motions against it. It was fully permitted. It was funded. Is that so hard to get - that bringing a done deal back would be easier than starting from scratch? You mentioned nothing in your 10:28 post to make me think it wouldn't be easier.

People just want to get something DONE. They know the political football that Tri-W is. The County won't and can't do Tri-W. If I thought out-of-town would be faster and cheaper, I still would have trouble going for it if it was at Giacomazzi (social justice and ethical issues). Tonini I am just fine with. The political and environmental "correctness" that moved the plant off Tonini have just opened up a giant can of costly legal worms and dumped it on Los Osos's head, an on the heads of the people out of town.

Mike sez:"and Ann, how do you know that there were no other sites looked at.....?????"

Once again you didn't read what I wrote before going off on your rant. Do you have reading comprehension problems??

Prefix 528 sez:"Don and Ron are taking us down memory lane in resurrecting the Tri-W debate. However, the real excursion into wastewater planning history is found in Andrew Christy's appeal saying that 75% of the existing septic tanks can be used as STEP tanks. That's straight from the early Solutions Group era."

Here's what's so weird about that: To my knowledge nobody has ever conducted a community wide actual inspection of tanks to determine if they're "leaking" or solid or whatever. Folks like Al's Septic file reports whenever they're called out and does anybody know if all those reports (of all septic pumpers) have been scanned to see how many calls were for broken, leaking tanks & etc. If they weren't, then the RWQCB and the County and all the EIR people in the world HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE TANKS OUT HERE ARE DOING. So where do these guestimates come from? And where do the phrases "leaking tanks polluting the ground water" come from? & etc. From day one, did everyone simply ASSUME whatever they wanted toi assume about whatever they wanted to assume about? (During the CDO Mad Hatter Tea Party RWQCB "trials" repeatedly RWQCB staff was asked, Do you have any imperical knowledge that So and So is polluting the groundwater of the State of Calif, & etc, and repeatedly the staff, under oath, kept answering: NO. No actual evidence. So we've been running for years on buestimates, assumptions, conclusions based on no actual evidence? And now we have Christie's 75% number? From where?

Toonces sez:"Tonini I am just fine with."

Even if Tonini doesn't keep the water in the basin the way Giacamazzi is supposed to do? I thought water was the really serious issue.

NO. The REALLY SERIOUS ISSUE is cleaning up the water. You should know -- that's what that pesky old Water Board wants - and you are back at them with that second PZLDF lawsuit! (Going to give us a report on that?)

We need FIRST to clean up the water, THEN we can deal with the other water issues.

The way to get the water back over the basin is with pipes.

Los Osos Lesson 101 - "How to Stop a Sewer" - the quick answer - LAWSUITS. The Bear Valley Alliance and the cemetary corporation (do you even KNOW who their lawyer is?) are doing their administrative remedies at the moment. But if the plan does not return to the Turri Road Tonini property - watch out. Conveniently, the obstructionists won't have to mount their own lawsuits this time to delay things - they have these two groups to do it for them.

So if you REALLY want to protect the basin from further DAMAGE - which delays are sure to cause, back Tonini or of course, my favorite, Tri-W.

Please go to this web address if you want to see the file written in part by Orenco's Terry Bounds and what he has to say about concrete tanks NOT being water tight (or MOST other tanks too). Then come back and comment, please.

Ann, how would you know if your septic tank was leaking? Especially if you have not pumped for the many years one is allowed to safely go without pumping? Does it suddenly not work if it is leaking? NO!

"And while you're at it, would somebody please find documentation of the overwhelming public demand that a sewer had to be located in the middle of town so it could have public amenities next to it."

The landlside election to form the CSD and two subsequent pro Tri-W boards being elected (2000 & 2002) isn't documentation enough? All CSD elections from 1998-2002 were centered around a sewer system in the middle of town. Ron's flap over the "bogus" SOC being the basis for the CDP is just so much hot air. Three elections should be evidence enough that the community was on board with the Tri-W site.

Wow Realistic... You think when a certain activist flew into town on her broom and with an ax to grind maybe started this whole sewer war....??? Surely a nymphomaniac couldn't have started this all by her self...

..but you are correct, the whole community, not just the small band of activists, voted overwelmingly for a CSD and truly supported the positive efforts finally toward a flush and forget sewer in Los Osos...

Now we get to see that same band of fat ladies, trolls, clowns, over aged cheerleaders and angry mental cases, who all pretend to be sewer experts, parade before every BOS and Water Board meeting... they really should be given the boot and barred from further "Public" comment...!!!

Oh, but what a boring experiment in local government democracy it would be without them.

Without looking over the deck againThe Appeals follow the form of 1. I have an interest in parcel x because I am the owner in adjacent parcel Y. And I brought my lawyer.2. Don's "there was another project that took care of most of the Coastal commission's concerns re; Tonini" The problem with that midtowneyish project at this time is not so much technical, because those arguments could be run, as much as it has acquired real bleeding stigmata.3. The Sierra Club environmental argument in favor of STEP, and parallel and derivatives. (And a Lawyer). I’m in agreement primarily with the sealed pipe issues overall.4. Other

The most serious threat to the aquifer is the proximity of salt water intrusion to the water table deficit area. This is in fact a predictable (was predicted now confirmed) event. 2003 data could be sufficient to simulate a projection to current conditions, though the date of the intrusion passing a fail safe condition would be imprecise.Given the additional data, I postulate that the fail safe zone has been reached. The next three years are going to see a deep and accelerated penetration of the bulge into areas currently considered "safe to pump".The bulge will have some characteristics different then the shape (approximated in the SWI graphs presented previously). This is the kind of event that will alter current pumping plans ahead of schedule. Conservation will not affect (retard) this event appreciably in the short run. Removal of septic contribution to the water table above the intrusion will have some accelerative effect but not in the short run.

Anybody know what happened to the Pismo site?Mike, when we overwhelmingly voted for a CSD it was "to control our own destiny" rather than being in the hands of the County, which was doing nothing for us at the time. Still aren't truth be told. We also subscribed to the $35 a month because by god we now controled our own destiny. Your beloved group brought this about by planning on only sewering part of the town. Please don't try and tell us they brought us a flush it and forget it system.Sincerely, M

So M, you seem to understand that the Solutions Group couldn't keep its original project and why. Learning from that mistake they moved on and got a project permitted and started. So yes, in essence they did bring a flush and forget system. On that topic - gravity - both the Planning Commission and Staff (see new reports on the BOS website) do agree. it's flush and forget.

Has the BOS finally tired of Shicker and the same old parade of fools doing all they can to delay and obstruct the sewer that should have already been in operation...???

Lisa should be taken to court by the BOS and by Montgomery, Watson and Harza... not only has she again wasted tax dollars chasing her fuzzy logic and personal opinions... Her enuendo is going to land her in a major slander suit she can't hope to win... but then, she's never "won" a lawsuit yet...

It's about time the fat lady left the stage...her singing days are over....

Mike sez:"Now we get to see that same band of fat ladies, trolls, clowns, over aged cheerleaders and angry mental cases, who all pretend to be sewer experts, parade before every BOS and Water Board meeting... they really should be given the boot and barred from further "Public" comment...!!!"

You're projecting again, Mike. Plus you forgot to include the catgory "nasty rageaholic who makes stuff up" then add yourself to the list for this blog comment section.

When will you pay your portion of the legal bill...??? You do know there is no agreement this time with the CSD... so wag on, just pay your own bills this time...

I love to project...and why would you be surprized, isn't that what you do with your "opinion" column... guess you don't like to see that quite a few folks disagree with your "opinions"...

The community is tired of you and the delays you continue to cheer on...!!!! I do hope to see a WWTF plant right in the middle of Tri-W just to see you spin more of your liberal indignation... Have a nice day...!!!

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (9/23) reports, "Rising water from the Chattahoochee River flooded out Atlanta's sewer treatment plant on Tueday, causing a massive dump of raw sewage into the rain-swollen river." The Chicago Tribune (9/23, Fausset) reports, "A number of rivers and streams have reached record flood levels. At least one section of the Chattahoochee River was not expected to crest until today at 30 feet -- some 15 feet above flood stage." Officials stated "that flooding had severely compromised the R.M. Clayton wastewater plant, the state's largest, on the banks of the Chattahoochee. As a result, 100 million gallons of untreated sewage and storm water were gushing into the swollen river Tuesday afternoon."

Prior to 1991 the Federal government provided approximately 90% of the grant money issued under the construction grant program to assist states with the development and implementation of wastewater treatment programs. This practice was changed as the Federal government shifted the responsibility toward the individual states.

Why didn't SLOCO access these funds when they had control of the project, after the 1983 PZ was formed?

The Federal government now provides "seed" money to the states to help fund low interest loans for environmental projects. The money provided by the Federal government and State match now make up the current funding for loans through the SRF program.

The EPA requires any regulated agency with a NPDES permit to eliminate all wastewater overflows that reach the waters of the United States. The ability to achieve such a goal is virtually impossible for a large majority of cities and agencies, since inflow and infiltration cannot be completely stopped.

Too bad Vacuum Collection has not yet studied yet. When the installation of pumps and costs associated with them is removed from the homeowner’s and therefore the County’s overall cost a total project would be less than the $128, 000,000.00 the 218 provided for, instead of the spiraling costs verbally spoken about in unofficial meetings at a golf course.

"I'm not a vacuume system engineer but; If you want your vacuum system not to fail, don't put rocks in it."

"Pre-final?Much ado about nothing?".On other news, 14 unique (As predicted in the comments section of this Blog) Appeals will be given 10 minutes each, on September 29th at a Government Center near you. Source: Supervisor Bruce Gibson's Meeting at Sea Pines Today.

5.2 miles sealed by fusion in High Goundwater will add "x' to cost of project, offset by "y", the cost of not sealing the pipes.where "y" > "x" in the long run

Thanks Sewertoons, that was an instructive link. I have been reading the 'documents' Schicker has submitted all along, and have just been flabbergasted that anyone could take them seriously! Emails between Schicker and her friends as evidence? What was she thinking? I am hopeful there will be an end to this mess now, but reading the comments on the Tribune blog, I'm not so sure. Still plenty of crazies to go around...as always.

The best way to seal a gravity pipe, is to replace it with a much smaller diameter pipe. (and not bury it as deep)

Fused Big pipes? Thick walls lead to less penetration of the fusing. Inflexible buried monsters will crack at the seams, at the first undulation of mother earth, (or shifting water tables may cause shifts and stresses).I'd rather see flexible joins with a second layer of flexible shieldingFurther rationale not supplied at this time.

word verification; dectionthe short form of "leak detection"not available in gravity

As I said on the SanLuisObispo.com comments (in the new Ogren story) that many of these ad hominem attacks against Lisa Schicker's supporters are inane and the public should swiftly dismiss those opinions.

As I wrote on there: "I'm not surprised Counsel drew this conclusion. The Preliminary Analysis projected the overall conclusion. After reading the entire complaint, I believe Jensen's analysis is accurate, however, I endorse a third-party investigation (not funded by taxpayers) to see if there was any wrongdoing on Ogren's part. I wouldn't say that Jensen's report is entirely conclusive given that the County cannot afford to jeopardize the project by finding fault with Mr. Ogren. They have the motive to rule in Ogren's favor."

I was going to respond to Lynette, but she has severe reading comprehension issues. Lynette, dear, you should read carefully what I write. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. Once I say something, I say it.

Regarding I&I fights, I just LOVE listening to this verbally combative stuff from those without practical experience, such as the think-tank mindless philosophers (there's a few here in town), the new-guys-on-the-block extreme folks (NWRI) and the general fifteen thousand waste water experts in town. Why? Because so much of I&I is in actuality L&D, as in lazy dump. That's an illegal cross-connect where the homeowner/apartment owner whatever has rainwater to dispose of in a sump, puts in a sump pump, and guess which is easier, running a line under the sidewalk to the street as ordained by law, or stuffing the discharge pipe of the 65 GPM sump pump into the nearest waste stack, air vent, or plumbing trap? Imagine what a few minutes of a 65 GPM sump pump during a major rainfall event does to the "sewage" output of such a home. I've seen these installs so many times, and few homeowners/buyers want to deal with changing the cheap fix. THIS is the source of so much of the spike in rainfall-contemporaneous influent spikes at WWTP's.

I keep pointing this out, nobody in the industry is listening, but boy once I'm appointed King, I'll appoint the sewer police (Lisa comes to mind, if I can find a little traffic-cop sort of Cushman three wheeler that can carry the load) to locate and cite these cross connects. This will shave the top off the rainy day spikes meaningfully. Mean time, all the Grade Fours of the world continue to mistakenly think the spikes on rainy days are totally I&I in their collection systems.

Just a small practical observation from the sidelines. Seriously though, somebody post the summary content of the Supervisor Gibson Town Hall at Sea Pines please?

Thank you Not2010, Very interesting information. I guess if you wanted to dis a gravity sewer, you would not want that information known.

It was a very quiet Gibson meeting. A lot of the talk centered on the need of Mr. Margitson and Ms. Walsh to find a place to put the food donations container they store donations in for their homeless feeds in LO. (If any one knows of space near the SBCC, that HAS electricity, please contact the above.

Topics ranged from Dan De Vaul, the schedule for the de novo hearing for the WWTF - BOS meeting next Tuesday, status of USDA funds, the staff report for Tuesday, the number of appellants, some of which gave identical appeals, the ISJ, the WWTF process once it leaves the hands of the BOS with their approval, when the BOS might accept the project, the $5million water conservation plan, the faulty math and # of connections, cost/benefits to such a program, accountability, the downed slats at Foothill and LOVR, the November CSD meeting at which time the Fire Dept. will get a thank you, San Simeon's moratorium, the timeline on the County's Palisades/LOVR improvement, Santa Ysabel sidewalk, possible new homeless shelter in SLO.

Ohhhhhhh Aaron, a titch of arrogance here tonight? "I was going to respond to Lynette, but she has severe reading comprehension issues"

Your original post was,

"People are quick to say, "The new board lied and was deceitful," but they never come clean with their faults. Looking at how the recalled board conducted business, the district was definitely headed into a downward spiral of fiscal recklessness.9:38 PM, September 16, 2009"

Then there were 3 posts in between by other authors.

I came back with a different thought - inspired by your thought, but not addressing it (why did you assume I was answering you?). (HINT: The key words are "You COULD compare.")

"You could compare the Solutions Group to The Lisa/Julie bunch. They both had this "idea" and the "idea" didn't work.

"AND THAT IS WHERE THE COMPARISON ENDS.

"The Solutions Group got their act together and found a project that met all regulatory requirements, fought innumerable lawsuits and started to build it. The Lisa/Julie bunch never had a project, caused innumerable lawsuits, defaulted on the SRF loan and bankrupted the CSD."

Then you came back with:

"I was comparing the Solutions Group to the recalled board, NOT the Lisa/Julie board. Work on your reading comprehension, my dear.10:44 AM, September 17, 2009"

The blog thread was then archived into the sidebar and I didn't bother to correct you. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to correct YOUR reading comprehension issues here.

I have to question your mental health because I write one thing, you disagree and you explain your disagreement by talking about something else that's completely different. I thought we were talking about the community survey.

I was talking about one subject matter (comparing the recalled board to the Solutions Group), but without even addressing that comparison, you talk about something else (comparing Solutions Group to Lisa and Julie)-- completely glossing over that point and you turn the discussion into a red herring.

It's frustrating because you take the discussion or the debate and channel it somewhere else. For example, at CSD office hours, I requested that Marshall Ochylski and Maria Kelly recuse themselves from discussion litigation regarding Taxpayers Watch -- and what was your response? "Well, I disagree because Sarah Christie has conflict of interest at the Planning Commission," when that analogy had nothing -- and I mean nothing -- to do with what I was talking about. You disagree with me by citing an analogy, which is a red herring in itself.

Why can't you be more honest, Lynette? Why can't you respond directly to a point? Why do you have to trail off into something else?

Your reading comprehension issues stem from the fact that you cannot take on an issue head-on. You refuse to -- and if I try to steer the conversation back to the original subject, you attempt to harass me until I respond.

I find that disrespectful. It's a shame, really. Talking to you is like having a discussion with Glenn Beck.

Bruce Gibson has "office hours," the CSD does not. They have board meetings.

As neither Marshall or Maria is part of, or knows, the inner workings of TW, why should they recuse themselves? (And I ought to know.) As I remember this, my remark about Sarah Christie was that she had been accused of having a conflict of interest, but that the Grand Jury had found nothing there, so to follow that thought, even though you felt that Maria and Marshall had a conflict of interest, there is nothing there.

You seem to confuse my honesty with my disinterest.

YOUR confusion was over the Community Survey, which you have dissed as being misleading, then you cite something in it to make a point for your take on something -- so suddenly now it is a valid survey?

Board meetings are not commonly known to occur on Saturday mornings, hence the typo. Actually, Joe Sparks once said to me that the board does have office hours -- so who should I listen to? You or the board president of the CSD? That's a real tough call.

I wasn't alleging actual -- but potential -- conflict of interest at that meeting. I was saying that Maria Kelly and Marshall Ochylski have close ties to influential Taxpayers Watch supporters who donated to their campaign -- and that these TW supporters could easily sway board opinion in their favor.

Your response was that anecdote about Sarah Christie... and I didn't see the point to that at all.

I'm not confused at all, Lynette. You're dishonest -- and every time I've caught you in the act, you say, "Oops, I misspoke!" I'll be looking forward to hearing your excuse this time after I explain (again) why I even brought up the community survey to begin with.

I've been consistent on this. My personal opinion is that the survey is misleading, but for the sake of argument, taking into consideration your personal opinion of the survey (that it's not misleading), I was saying that you -- yes YOU -- cannot pick and choose by pushing aggressively for Tri-W when people chose out-of-town or edge. When it came to the collection system component, you've applauded the survey results. Let me explain this a different way. For the sake of YOUR argument, you ignore the social infeasibility of Tri-W as depicted in the community survey, but you tout the results of gravity overpowering STEP/STEG as being gospel. You either accept the survey results or you don't.

Aaron, you are right. The Board members now do come in Saturdays and do office hours. This is a relatively new occurrence. Saturday - August 8 was the first Office Hours. It was announced at the August 6 CSD meeting. I have never been to an "office hours."

However, Thursday, July 30, was when we both spoke at the 5:30p.m. pre-closed session public comments period. You spoke on the conflict of interest and I gave the Sarah Christie analogy. She has close ties to the Sierra Club and a Grand Jury investigation found nothing to that association in her decisions that affected developers in other parts of the County. I hope that clarifies what I meant. (That evening session was the joint meeting with LOCAC if that helps with remembering.) And it is OK with me if you don't see the point.

OH! I just didn't get that YOU were reversing yourself "for the sake of argument!"

YOU are making the LEAP that the out of town choice was for "social infeasibility." I believe people chose that because the County only chose to delineate projects out of town and not revisit Tri-W (for political reasons and lack of their being a water purveyor), and most people want to go with what the County recommends -- for the purpose of getting something BUILT.

I am not saying ANYWHERE that Tri-W will be chosen. In fact, I always mention that it WILL NOT be chosen. I can say what I want about my liking Tri-W and nowhere do I say that anyone else agrees with me or that they have to agree with me. Just what does this have to do with my accepting the results of the survey? I do and I always have.

Maybe I should have gone into teaching kindergarten. Lack of critical thinking is a big problem these days - starting early is the trick -- and talking points that lack facts is another problem.

FOGSWAMP - the CSD is bankrupt, and that property is an asset. Unless they can find a willing park-builder to buy it, expect something - shall we say -- more commercial?

You have nothing to fear - the Supes could not possible put it there - staff recommends against it being there too. As to delays - which of the other properties will NOT generate lawsuits? Tri-W is nice because just about everything about it has been litigated - and shot down already. We have a whole new ball game with Giacomazzi. Start from square one.

It was a response to, "I believe people chose that because the County only chose to delineate projects out of town and not revisit Tri-W (for political reasons and lack of their being a water purveyor), and most people want to go with what the County recommends -- for the purpose of getting something BUILT."

Tri-W has only been litigated against by a small minority of extremists...all their objections were dismissed and a full set of legal permits were issued...

...and remember those opposition lawyers only were paid by the CSD after the recall..they would not have been paid by the CSD had the recall not passed... Al Barrow was extremely pleased with the outcome of the recall so he could pay his lawyers with CSD money, he didn't have any...and it was not lost that he suddenly had a new truck and suit...

If Tri-W is chosen again, those opposition arguments will be well known by the County... Unless some magic argument were to come forth, there is no reason to expect the outcome to be any different and we would see another fully permitted WWTF on the Tri-W site, maybe a little bigger this time since Los Osos seems so willing to spend money on this sewer issue...!!!!

All those lawsuits filed back in the day were filed by people who never changed their legal strategy as they fought the SLO court judges. One of them, Honorable Judge Hilton, who presided over the original Measure B hearings, appeared at the CSD groundbreaking ceremony. I read into his appearance as tacit approval of what was going on -- and to me, that showed partiality in favor of the recalled board.

I believe a legal case can be made against Tri-W, BUT Al Barrow can't be the one making the case. CCLO and CASE jumped head-first into litigation without considering the counterarguments, which are (1) the site was already permitted, (2) the project at Tri-W would be pursuant to the definition of "shovel-ready" and (3) it doesn't "shock the conscience" for a sewer to be mandated at that particular location.

Um ... Bush beat Gore by more than 5 votes. (Unless you are referring to the decision of the US Supremes ... in which case it was a 1 vote margin.)

It would have gone the other way if it hadn't been for the Butterfly Ballot effect. We can say, for sure, that in 2000 the winner was not who the American public wanted in office, even if we view the Electoral College as sacrosanct.

Even while the votes were cast for Bush, the Butterfly Ballot data analysis makes it clear that many who ended up voting for Buchanan intended to vote for Gore. Thousands. They voted for the wrong guy, one they didn't intend to vote for.

In short ... never underestimate the ability of the common man to screw things up.

Calhouns Can(n)ons

About the Can(n)ons

Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com

To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful. Edward R. Murrow

It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.Antoine de Saint-ExuperyThe Little Prince

No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly. Montaigne